tv [untitled] July 5, 2014 10:30pm-11:01pm PDT
tncs hope, which was that the driver didn't have a passenger in their car, their insurance didn't cover that fatality. we have to be able to address that issue. i hope an incident like this doesn't happen again, but doesn't mean it won't. we want to tell our residents that they can safely walk and bike throughout the city or can drive, and there will be something that will cover them in an unfortunate collision. so i am supportive of that piece of the resolution. you know, i am very -- i am concerned about the number of consecutive hours. i'm not sure as a public policymaker i have enough information for what that would look like, but unlimited hours of driving is not safe. we at a local level are at an uncomfortable position.
there's no definition of what a taxicab is at the state level. tncs are defined as other carriers that are regulated by the cpuc. i'm not sure cpuc is the best entity to be regulating. any industry, much less transportation network companies, but at minimum, what is done for limousines at the cpuc level has to be done for tncs as well. i did want to make one amendment, although i realize in supervisor wiener's version, the amendment i was going to make was deleted so i'm not sure if the file's going to get duplicated or kind of some aspects of supervisor wiener's amendment will be accepted, but the one piece i wanted to ensure was on page 3, under the resolve of more stringent safety regulations, that when we talk about using background checks, we do it in a manner
that's consistent with a fair chance ordinance that the board of supervisors passed earlier this year around background checks. did want to note that while we only allow employers to do a seven year look back at your convictions, we do allow employers to look at traffic infractions and if you were applying for a driving job that is the one exception that we made because we think that's relevant information to an playier and the city and county of san francisco. i offer that friendly amendment. thank you. >> supervisor cohen. >> i just wanted to acknowledge -- thank you supervisor kim for raising that issue. i missed that, but that's a piece of legislation that we worked on together and it is of
equal importance to me as well. because it was deleted you don't have any language. >> it hasn't been deleted. it's an amendment. >> do you have the language? is that what this is? >> yeah, so my amendment was in the red on page 3 on line 19 and 20 and this is to supervisor mar's resolution. i wanted to note that supervisor wiener has already addressed his potential amendments, which we haven't agreed to yet, but his amendments delete that portion of the resolved clause so my amendment would not be applicable to his amendments. >> okay, thank you. so supervisor mar, would you like to call up the analysts? >> yes. so dan and fred are here from the budget and legislative analysts office.
>> chair wiener, supervisor kim; we prepared a report at the request of supervisor mar and she had asked us to profile the taxi transportation companies. we have differences in each, including benefits, challenges and risks. he asked us to review the imfacts of tncs on the taxi industry and finally he requested that we review regulatory developments that have taken place in other jurisdictions. we did issue a report addressing those questions on june 9 and dan is going to walk you through a quick summary of it, particularly focused on risks. we did identify a number of risks associated with the current state of the industry and the current regulations that apply to the industry and the risks were found to effect
drivers, passengers, the public and the city. so with that, i'll turn it over to dan. thanks. >> good afternoon supervisors. so just to make this a very brief presentation, the rapid growth in transportation network companies in san francisco over the last five years has a lot of impacts on the city. first just want to acknowledge that it's created a lot of job opportunities for bay area residents. it has enabled residents with smart phones to utilize a greater supply of for transportation options. so here on this slide, and on the next slide, i have summary of a table that's in the executive summary of the report
and just kind of goes down the identification of differences between the two industries. and first of, the taxi industry has a little under 2,000 vehicles in san francisco. this compares with an estimate of 5 to 10,000 transportation network company vehicles. there's about 9,000 taxi drivers in the city and again, estimated of 5 to 10,000 tnc drivers in the city. there's 27 licensed taxi i companies in the city, five transportation network companies in the city. with regard to backgrounds checks that are required, the -- in san francisco the taxi industry is required to check the entire adult criminal history of all potential taxi drivers. that's done by the mta. that compares up to seven years
of recent criminal history for transportation network companies. in regards to the check of dmv history, the taxi industry checks ten years, the tnc checks seven years. with regards to training, taxi drivers are required to attends five days of training, four days of taxi school with an exam and one day of mta led training with another exam. the tncs are required by the cpuc to provide training and a training plan to the puc, but there's no specific content requirements or exams required in the state regulations.
on slide number three, the table continues, just highlighting the differences in the liability insurance requirements. all taxicabs are covered up for up to a million dollars in primary commercial liability insurance per occurrence, which includes bodily injury to drivers and passengers, as well as vehicle damage, and that's for every vehicle every time it's on duty. the transportation network companies are required by the cpuc currently -- this is currently up for potential change by the cpuc, but currently they're required to carry one million in commercial insurance while providing tnc services, but there are disagreements between the state and tncs regarding the extent of driver coverage as well as the definition of what
providing tnc services are and i can go into more detail if there are any questions about that. mostly centers around the period when a driver has the app open and is looking for passengers to pick up in addition, currently the tncs -- it's not clear that the coverage they have has to be primary, which is an important distinction. on workers compensation insurance, the city requires that taxi companies provide workers compensation insurance for all drivers while on duty; however, there's no such requirement for tncs. tncs consider their drivers to be independent contractors and not subject to workers compensation requirements. with regards to pricing, taxis are obviously regulated by the
mta. the rates do not change without mta commission approval. and on the tnc there's no regulation of the pricing, rates can change by the companies at any time for any reason. and we also have a summary of the current rates. i'm not going to go through all the details here, but the rates -- it's really hard to do a side-by-side comparison for the tncs, we just did an average of the five companies, what they offer. this does not include surge pricing. this was done in may so it's possible that the prices have change between then and now. the only other thing i'd add is that the taxi prices obviously are metered and the tnc prices are based on their own technology that's not regulated by the state.
as well as unknown potential healthcare costs and income replacement costs due to uninsured drivers. i just have one more slide that summarizes the areas of heightened risk and i will skip over the areas i have already spoken to, but these are [inaudible] and just are areas of heightened risk due toless stringent regulation by the
cpuc versus is mta. the increased number of vehicles on the streets, less stringent driver background checks, less insurance liability and no requirement to provide workers compensation coverage. there's less stringent vehicle inspection and this is -- tncs are required by the state to do an initial inspection check, but no follow ups after that. in the city taxi cars are inspected initially and annually at the time of the mta's choosing, at any time in the year. there's no formal process for tnc drivers or companies for handling the complaints or citations or potential revocations of operating permits, whereas in the city there's a formal process in place. there's also no requirement that tnc vehicles have cameras
installed in their vehicles, whereas taxi companies in the city are required to have that. it helps protect both passengers and drivers. again, no requirement to maintain a business presence. staff in the city for lost property and there's no specific environmental requirements for the tnc vehicles, although if they are purchased in california they are obviously subject to statewide fleet rules. and lastly, i'll just say that there's no requirement or incentives in place for the transportation network companies to participate in the city's para transit program and that means that taxi companies are required to accept the debit card that's used by para transit passengers. there's no such requirement by tnc vehicles. obviously none of these companies are allowed to discriminate based on that, but
these companies are not required to take that debit card, which is a primary means of payment for the para transit program. >> i have a question. so i just presented and reviewed before about some of the themes like what you believe are deficiencies in the tnc system. did you assess the benefits of tnc san francisco as well? >> yes. we did. and -- >> where is that? >> there is some in front of the report in the executive summary we speak to the job opportunities that have been provided to tnc drivers, as well as the additional supply of for hire transportation access. >> so where exactly is that? >> let me take a look real quick.
on page two, the second bullet point at the top speaks to the job opportunities. for individuals using their personal automobiles and as well as the enabling of city residents and visitors with smart phones to more easily utilize a greater supply of for hire transportation options. >> there is a 31 page report and it looks like there's two sentences that acknowledge that it has created job opportunities, enabled city residents to utilize a greater supply than provided by the taxi industry alone and easier entry into jobs for the taxicab industry, more flexibility and better pay.
better pay, more flexibility, easier entry jobs, and more supply. so did you analyze the specifics of any of those? like, how many more jobs, how much more flexible, what the pay differential is or what the differential for experience for past for riders is ? was that analyzed at all? >> we did not look into that? >> why not? >> we were asked to provide a profile of the regulation of both industries and identify potential risks and/or costs to the city. >> did supervisor mar ask you to look at the benefits of tncs beyond two sentences? >> yeah. we were asked to, you know, look broadly at the benefits and the costs. >> okay. because i see -- i'm not trying to be critical.
i have great respect for your office, but there's a lot of pages and pages that seem to be, you know -- one could read as critical of the tnc industry or pointing out aspects that maybe need some work, which we all agree. we all agree the insurance needs work, other aspects need work, but it would seem that there are benefits as well, and that that would probably deserve some analysis. a lot of people have jobs now. i mean, i know people in my district who are, you know, having trouble making their rent and they drive for one of these companies and they're able to make rent because of that. i know people who have given up their cars because of this so they no longer need a parking space because for the first time they're actually able to rely and before they didn't think they could get a cab, but now they can get something where there's a cab or tnc. i think in looking at this issue, i think it's important
to look at both sides, the challenges and the improvements they need to make, and the benefits to the community and workers as well. >> just on that question, there are more than two sentences about the benefits so we do have details in the tables about the lower costs for drivers to get a job compared to getting a job with the taxi industry and there is information about the number of jobs because we know there's 10,000 vehicles and the number of jobs is commensurate with that. so there is some information in there about the benefits and we've made the statement several times that providing more transportation services than were available before. >> okay. >> also on the wear and tear we made the statement that the tnc vehicles are well -- could well be replacing purchases that
individuals may have made of cars so we're not assuming there's a detrimental effect because of these vehicles being on the street and that is in the report. >> and all vehicles pay gas tax and the like? thank you very much, i appreciate it. >> thank you -- >> supervisor mar. >> yeah, thank you. i just wanted to say thank you for a couple of the recommendations wales. as well. i wanted to ask you about an assumption from emails i've been receiving about having stronger driving vehicle training, consumer protection, protections built in whether it's state law or what we do locally, that that would lead to a decrease in service. i'm wondering, do you think additional safety regulations and some state and local regulations would lead to decreased service? >> i guess it'd probably depend on the level of, you know, what
specifically is being put in the proposal, but right now it seems like the incentives are -- from the drivers are pretty heavily in favor of working for the transportation network companies. i -- in preparing this report, i saw a lot of information that showed that -- or indicated that taxi company -- a lot of taxi drivers are shifting over to drive for tncs. obviously they're always -- the tncs are getting a lot of new drivers that are driving for the first time, but there is also, i think, evidence of a shift over from the taxi industry to the tnc industry. >> and then just really briefly, you've looked at other jurisdictions in the report, in particular seattle, but also a number of other jurisdictions. and could you just talk a little bit about the state of
california's regulatory power versus what we can do locally and maybe some ideas that have come from other local jurisdictions? >> sure, so in seattle, now, the situation in many of these jurisdictions is in flux. one of those is seattle, which i think has put forward one of the more stringent sets of regulations and one thing that makes -- that is unique about seattle's proposal is that it enables their city administrator to place a cap on the number of tnc licenses or moratorium on new tnc licenses. in most of these jurisdictions they're putting forward regulations that touch upon many areas of the cpuc. it's touching upon insurance
requirements, training, criminal background checks, vehicle inspections. so what we're seeing is a lot of consistency in those areas, and then i think seattle kind of sticks outs as one that took it a step further. i should say that the ordinance did pass in seattle, but there's a question as to whether it's going to be rescinded now by the city council or by the voters up there. >> and then i had another question about your estimation of 5,000 to 10,000 drivers from the five tnc companies in the city. why is it we can't come up with a more accurate estimate of how many are on the street or how many available in peak times or in general times? >> so the tncs are not required at least currently to report the number of drivers that are working for their respective
companies to the cpuc and the mta has no census or -- currently they're not claiming jurisdiction so the mta is not actually regulating in any respect the tncs. >> i really appreciate the thoroughness of the report and how quickly you got it completed as well, so thank you. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just had a quick question. you may not know the answer to this and i'll ask sfm ta if you don't. on the first graph you had put on the extent of required background checks, it says that sfmta looks at the entire adult criminal history. >> correct. >> do you know how they do that? >> yes. so as a government agency the mta is permitted to do fingerprint based criminal backgrounds checks and it goes through, like, a national
department of justice database. and tncs as private entities do not have access to that system so they can run checks on social security numbers, which provides seven years of history, but not the entire whole criminal history. >> and do you know if sfmta has changed their policy since the enactment of the fair chance ordinance? >> my understanding is their current policy is still checking the entire adult criminal background. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> okay. >> mr. chairman, i was just going to thank everyone. i have an appointment that i have to be at and i cannot stay, but i appreciated my colleagues' amendments to the resolution and i would strongly urge, as you consider the last -- i think there's a couple of resolves that are before you to
consider -- and i think it's been handed out. it's a two sided sheet that has in red some compromised language from what supervisor wiener has proposed and my proposal is to include, i think, supervisor wiener's additional resolution, but to replace the last resolved with the following language, resolve that the san francisco board of supervisors urges the sfmta to develop a plan [inaudible] including the protection of accessible services and enforcement of enhanced safety regulations in cooperation with the california public utilities commission within six months of the passage of this resolution and striking the original language that was proposed. that is my proposed compromise from what supervisor wiener has
proposed, but also allowing his resolve to be added in as well. i'm sorry that i cannot stay to kind of hear the discussion of this, but i think for the the whereas recommendations, i would say including supervisor wiener's, but not striking the language that is factual that references the budget and legislative analyst's report, for example, and not striking the factual language on tncs and people with disabilities and accessibility, that would be my recommendation. but i'm sorry that i cannot stay for the dialogue from the public or from the body. >> thank you supervisor mar. colleagues, i also, if i may, i did see supervisor kim's minor
amendment about the fair chance, which i'm fully supportive of so i've incorporated a version of that. this would be on page 4, line 10 of my red lined version, wra it says including but not limited to one stringent safety regulation. and then i've added in, stringent safety regulations, including criminal background checks, [inaudible] >> thank you for doing that, chair wiener and thank you to supervisors kim and cohen for making that recommendation as well. >> thank you. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i actually have a [inaudible] 15 minutes ago so i'm not going to be able to stay the entire hearing, but i want to clarify, supervisor mar, you want to keep
3, line 15, so my suggestion is keeping in all that language and not striking it. >> that's, "driver's and"? >> yes. >> you just want line 15? >> no, page 2, line 19; all the way through page 3, line 15. so keeping all those factual and information into the resolution, but allowing supervisor wiener's additional language to be included. >> okay. >> thank you for clarifying. >> i know that we had, from the mta, kate torn, who's here and been the recently appointed interim taxi and accessible services s director and i wanted to thank her as well. >> thank you.
goods afternoon chair wiener and committee members cohen and kim and supervisor mar. excited to be here. i've been on the job a week so hit the ground running, or tried to. and i have prepared some comments today and if i go on too long i guess you'll just give me the signal. >> yeah, if you could be extremely brief that will help. >> i've been the para transit manager at the sfmta for 15 years and was recentsly appointed accessibility side of the house and if any questions come up related to that please let me know. i really wanted to position the sfmta's values related to a regulated taxi industry and that there's a public good to having a regulated taxi industry and that we have an interest in maintaining a strong and healthy taxi industry.